The Labor enquirer., 1887-03-12
A POINT Of LAW.
What the U. S. Supreme Court
Has to Say About Un-
lawful Scar rches.
The Real Doctrine Of Personal
Liberty and Security Plainly
Stated by Them.
NO Policeman Has Right to Break
Open Doors and Seize
Private Property.

Al AHSat0 xEOR0ftys
Ina recent case, that Of Boyd VI. The
United States, the supreme court of thie
land rendered the decision following:
FAcs:AIn the BOYD case there va.
only q constructive seizure, the books
and papers Of the defendant being
surrendered under the provisions
of the United States statute, which de.
crees that all the private papers of one
accused Of an offsnse under the inter.
nal revenue laws, as Bovd was, shall be
put in the hands Of the prosecuting off,
GERS. 7
Boyd's counsel argue that this action
vitiated the judgment, as in effect It
amounts to compelling him to testify
against himself. X
Upon that point the supreme court
saws: //e n,
Ihe principles laid down in the
opinion (of Lord CampbslD affect the
very essence of constitutional liberty
and security. They reach further than
the concrete form of the case then be.
fore the court, with its adventitious cir.
cumstances; they apply to all invasions
on the part of the government and It's
employees of the sanctities of mans
home and the privacies oflife. tis not
the breaking in of his doors and the
rummaging ofhis drawers that consti.
tute the essence of the offsnse, but. it is
the invasion of his indefeasible right Of
personal security. personal liberty, and
private property, where that right has
never been forfeited bv his conviction
of some public offense-it ls the inya.
sion ct this sacred right which underlies
and constitutes the essence of Lord
Campbell's Judgment. Breaking into a
house and opening boxes and drawers
are circumstance Of aggravation; but
any forcible and compulsory e1tortiSn
ofa mans own testimony or of his pri.
vate papers to be used as evidence to
convict him Of crime or to forfeit his
goods. are within the condemnation of
that iu lgment. u this regard the fourth
and nth amendments ruin almost into
each other
ANY compulsory discovery by extort-
ing the party's oath or compelling the
production Of his private books and pa.
pers to convict him of crime or to forfeit
his property is contrary to the princi.
Piles of a free government. 1t is abhor.
rent to the instincts of an Englishmsn !;
it is abhorrent to the instincts of an
American. 1t may suit the purposes If
despotic power. but it cannot abide the
pure atmosphere of political liberty and
personal freedom. ** We are
further of opinion that a compulsory
production of\the private books nd
papers of tho owner ofgoods sought to
be forfeited in such suit is compelling
him to be a witness against himself
within the meaning of the fifth amend.
ment of the constitution, and is the
equivalent of a search and ssiz.
ure-and an unreasonable search
and seizure within the mean
ing Of the fourth amendment. Though
the proceeding In question is divested
of many of the aggravating incidents of
actua search and seizure, yet, as before
said, it contains their substance and e.
sence and effects their substantial pur.
pose. 1t may be that it Is an obnoxious
thing in its mildest and least repuls,ve
form but ilfegitimate and unconstitu.
tional practices get theii first footing in
that way namely, by silent approaches
and slight deviations from legal means
of procedure. This can only be obviated
by adhering to the rule that constitu.
tional provisions for the security of per.
sons and property should be literally
construed. a close and illibersl con-
structlon deprives them Of half of their
ficacy, and leads to gradual deprecia-
ton of the right, as if it consisted more
in sound than in substance. It.is the
duty of courts to be watchful for the
constitutional rights of the citizen and
against any stealthy encrochments
thereon. Their motto should be ol sta
principals"
Let labor ORGANIZATIONS consider the
above opinion carefully, in conjunction
with Comrade &C. Ovens letter in
last weeks ENQUIRER concerning the
pistol performances Of the police.
I III the executive board of the K. OIL
: desire to move on broad lines in the
future. why may they not take up and
fight to finish these great constitu.
, tional questions Of personal liberty and
7 security? n
II they will not, what prevents ths
J S. L. p, the l. w. P. A. or the I./\W, A
} or all Of them jointly from making lthi,
meter the first step in their proposed
new Federation IAsrAsorH.
, |